Legal Opinion

Hibbs v. Arensberg

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided January 3, 1923No. Appeal, No. 84PublishedCited by 104 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Kephart,

Executive officers of municipal and school districts have many discretionary powers in performing their functions; ordinarily courts will not interfere with this exercise, but if it appears their action is based on a misconception of law, ignorance through lack of inquiry into facts necessary to form intelligent judgment, or the result of arbitrary will or caprice, courts will intervene to prevent an abuse of power adverse to public welfare. Executive officers are clothed with the responsibility of originating and executing plans for the public good; the…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Commonwealth ex rel. Snyder v. MitchellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1876
  2. Douglass v. Commonwealth ex rel. SeniorSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1885
  3. Reuting v. City of TitusvilleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1896
  4. Edmundson v. Pittsburgh School DistrictSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1915
  5. Interstate Vitrified Brick & Paving Co. v. Philadelphia, Mack Paving Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1894

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by104 opinions

  1. Wilson v. Philadelphia School DistrictSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1937
  2. Roberts v. School Dist. of ScrantonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
  3. Breinig v. Allegheny CountySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
  4. Zebra v. Pittsburgh School DistrictSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1972
  5. Smith v. Darby School DistrictSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1957

99 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API